1 2025:CGHC:47491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1243 of 2022 Smt. Jageshwari W/o Mukesh Sande Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sevti, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Present Address - Mini Basti, Jarhabhatha Ward No. 8, Gurughasidas Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Mukesh Sande S/o Jamuna Prasad Sande Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 802/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and non applicant were married with Hindu custom on 25/02/2018 in village Kutela, Police station Palari & Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) after the solemnized of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the marriage both of them resides happily for the period of two months. It is further alleged that soon thereafter the Non-applicant/respondent and father and mother in-laws and relatives used to harass, torturing and beating the non-applicant with subject to demand of dowry. On 21/07/2019 the applicant lodged a report before police station Masturi, District Bilaspur with regard to misbehaving and torturing with regard to demand of dowry against non applicant along with family members. The concerned police station could not perform with the report of applicant and not called any counseling to solve the matter. The applicant is ready to reside in the house of in laws, but the respondent not interested to keep the applicant. Due to which the respondent always misbehaved harassed, abusing and also always assault her with lathi, hand and Fist, but the behavior of respondent did not change. after some time the respondent again started harassing the applicant and finally expelled the applicant from his house. The applicant further pleaded that she is living with her parental house and she has no source of income. The respondent is doing the work in Private Company and he is getting a sum of Rs. 25,000 to 30,000/- per month and agriculture situated 15 acres at village Kutela income of Rs. 5,00,000/- per year. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is 3 further submitted that the applicant has no means for her livelihood, she has to depend on her father, on the contrary respondent is earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month and agriculture situated 15 acres at village Kutela income of Rs. 5,00,000/- per year. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set- aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar